The default position...

[Bunyip]

No, schrodinger changes the default position from assuming not truth to assuming truth.

I think you entirely missed the point of Schrodinger's proposition - he makes neither assumption, and his proposition has no relation to the question of defaults.

 

[Curious George]

George, I told you twice that Schrodinger is not talking about belief.
This thread is about a specific belief, not hypothesis, possible states or probabilities.

The health of Schrodinger's cat is not knowable until the box is opened. Conversely whether or not you believe in God is knowable, it is a yes or no.

Perhaps the problem lies with your understanding of belief. To believe something is true is to accept it as true.

Yes whether one believes god exists is knowable, just as whether one believes god does not exist is knowable. However, if we take the agnostic approach and say whether God exists or does not exist is not knowable either the default position of rejecting both claims or the acceptance of both claims accurately describes the agnostic. Therefore, both are possible.

 

[Deathbydefault]

No, schrodinger changes the default position from assuming not truth to assuming truth.

Then it is not the default position.
You can't just change the definition of a term like that, the world would be chaos.
"[evil laugh] 'Christianity' now means 'feces' [evil laugh]"

I would like a name for such a thing though (a main reason this thread is here).

Subjective position?
Doesn't sound quite right.

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps the problem lies with your understanding of belief. To believe something is true is to accept it as true.

Well sure, it is something we think is true.

Yes whether one believes god exists is knowable, just as whether one believes god does not exist is knowable. However, if we take the agnostic approach and say whether God exists or does not exist is not knowable either the default position of rejecting both claims or the acceptance of both claims accurately describes the agnostic. Therefore, both are possible.

Now you are confusing belief for knowledge.
Sorry George, you lost me there. That does not at all address the central problem - holding two mutually exclusive positions at the same time.

You leap from equivocating belief to hypothesis, then to probability, then to possible states, then to knowledge - all to (well it looks to me) deny your atheism.

 

[Curious George]

I think you entirely missed the point of Schrodinger's proposition - he makes neither assumption, and his proposition has no relation to the question of defaults.

Can we assume that the cat is dead and the cat is alive?

 

[Bunyip]

Can we assume that the cat is dead and the cat is alive?

Can we stop talking about possible states as if it were relevant?

This is about belief George, not hypothesis, not possible states, not probabilities, not knowledge.

It is about whether or not people hold a certain belief.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Agnosticism is a category of atheism

Agnosticism is not the same as atheism. They are different.
Life itself is not black-and-white, either-or, one-or-the-other, and there is no reason it should be assumed that all religious positions are.
I don't dismiss the possibility of the existence of a god. I don't dismiss the possibility there may not be a god. There is no possible way for me to make an informed decision.

I addressed your entire post twice, I did not 'focus on half of it'.

Yes, you did. Though you latch onto half of what I said and claimed I am atheist, you ignore the other half which, by your logic, also means I am a theist. But I am neither.

 

[Bunyip]

Agnosticism is not the same as atheism. They are different.
Life itself is not black-and-white, either-or, one-or-the-other, and there is no reason it should be assumed that all religious positions are.
I don't dismiss the possibility of the existence of a god.

Neither does atheism.

. I don't dismiss the possibility there may not be a god. There is no possible way for me to make an informed decision.

Yes, you did. Though you latch onto half of what I said and claimed I am atheist, you ignore the other half which, by your logic, also means I am a theist. But I am neither.

No I did not, I addressed your entire statement. I did not ignore the second part.

I addressed the sentence in question in it's entirety. Several times. You have made that accusation several times, and ignore my pointing out that I did not do so.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Agnosticism is not the same as atheism. They are different.
Life itself is not black-and-white, either-or, one-or-the-other, and there is no reason it should be assumed that all religious positions are.
I don't dismiss the possibility of the existence of a god. I don't dismiss the possibility there may not be a god. There is no possible way for me to make an informed decision.

As I've said, it is a subcategory of atheism.
Not the same thing, but not super different either.

We've provided definitions, usages, and where it says what we are saying.
I would ask for the same kindness, but this argument has already been settled.

We aren't trying to force agnostics to identify as atheists, just stating that their beliefs apply within atheism.

Atheism is black
Theism is white
Sub-categories are the gray,

and there is no middle area.

 

[Curious George]

Can we stop talking about possible states as if it were relevant?

This is about belief George, not hypothesis, not possible states, not probabilities, not knowledge.

It is about whether or not people hold a certain belief.

I feel like you are evading the question. If you accept the cat is alive then you believe the cat is alive, if you accept the cat is dead then you believe the cat is dead. Are you saying it is not possible to accept both of these as true.

The default position, deals with belief based on lack of evidence. This does the same. I am not off in left field here.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I see how you are applying default position here, that's why I'm not complaining about this being off subject

I simply just do not get how someone can believe in something and disbelieve the same thing at the same time.
A deeper explanation would be nice, I have terrible soft skills so I can sympathize if this is as simple as you can get.

 

[Bunyip]

I feel like you are evading the question. If you accept the cat is alive then you believe the cat is alive, if you accept the cat is dead then you believe the cat is dead. Are you saying it is not possible to accept both of these as true.

Correct. In that situation the condition of the cat can not be known - but what we do know is that it is EITHER alive or dead. It must be in either one of those two possible states.

The default position, deals with belief based on lack of evidence. This does the same. I am not off in left field here.

George you leap from field to field so fast, I don't even know what time zone you are in. It is the Gish Gallop at it's best.
I'm not evading the question George, but you seem to be ignoring all of my answers.

 

[Curious George]

Correct. In that situation the condition of the cat can not be known - but what we do know is that it is EITHER alive or dead. It must be in either one of those two possible states.George you leap from field to field so fast, I don't even know what time zone you are in. It is the Gish Gallop at it's best.
I'm not evading the question George, but you seem to be ignoring all of my answers.

Well let us slow down and not assume this person is confused...

I assume you understand the default position as I do:

That when faced with mutually exclusive probability the default position is to accept none until evidence of one is offered.

This is a rejection of the truth of all mutually exclusive claims despite knowing that one must be true until evidence of the truth of one is discovered. Please differentiate this from the acceptance of the truth of all mutually exclusive claims until the falsity of one is discovered.

Your answer, which I am not avoiding, seems to be cognitive dissonance. I disagree. But assuming that one could experience cognitive dissonance from such an acceptance, please show how all must experience cognitive dissonance. Then please show how such cognitive dissonance would prevent such acceptance of the claims.

Best case scenario for you, a person experiences cognitive dissonance. This does not invalidate the position. Nor does experiencing cognitive dissonance prevent this position from occurring. All cognitive dissonance means is that the person experiences cognitive dissonance.

So, please explain apart from the ad hominem attacks of that person is crazy, why the logic behind the thought is erroneous while the default position is not.

Next please explain whether the person is an atheist or a theist.

 

[Curious George]

I see how you are applying default position here, that's why I'm not complaining about this being off subject

I simply just do not get how someone can believe in something and disbelieve the same thing at the same time.
A deeper explanation would be nice, I have terrible soft skills so I can sympathize if this is as simple as you can get.

I am not saying that a person can believe something and not believe something at the same time.

 

[Bunyip]

Well let us slow down and not assume this person is confused...

I assume you understand the default position as I do:

That when faced with mutually exclusive probability the default position is to accept none until evidence of one is offered.

No, this is about beleif - not probability.

This is a rejection of the truth of all mutually exclusive claims despite knowing that one must be true until evidence of the truth of one is discovered. Please differentiate this from the acceptance of the truth of all mutually exclusive claims until the falsity of one is discovered.

Your answer, which I am not avoiding, seems to be cognitive dissonance. I disagree. But assuming that one could experience cognitive dissonance from such an acceptance, please show how all must experience cognitive dissonance. Then please show how such cognitive dissonance would prevent such acceptance of the claims.

Best case scenario for you, a person experiences cognitive dissonance. This does not invalidate the position. Nor does experiencing cognitive dissonance prevent this position from occurring. All cognitive dissonance means is that the person experiences cognitive dissonance.

So, please explain apart from the ad hominem attacks of that person is crazy, why the logic behind the thought is erroneous while the default position is not.

Next please explain whether the person is an atheist or a theist.

Does the person in question believe in God?
Yes or no?

 

[Deathbydefault]

I am not saying that a person can believe something and not believe something at the same time.

That, to me, is contradictory to previous statements you have made, hence my want for a deeper explanation.

 

[Curious George]

No, this is about beleif - not probability.
Does the person in question believe God?
If yes, they are theist. If no atheist. It is either/or.

Thank you.

So now by your reasoning, we understand that a theist can include someone with the belief that god does not exist. This seems troubling. But it is thus because you believe whether someone believes god does not exist is irrelevant to the question of whether someone is a theist or an atheist.

This view expresses an agnostic view point so, we also have in this the understanding that agnostics, believing that god exists and God does not exist are equally likely, can be called atheist or theist regardless of the fact that they all believe that the God exists and God does not exist are equally likely.

Is this a fair characterization?

 

[Bunyip]

Thank you.

So now by your reasoning, we understand that a theist can include someone with the belief that god does not exist.

No. By definition, no. A theist by definition believes a God exists. That is what it means to be theist.

.This seems troubling. But it is thus because you believe whether someone believes god does not exist is irrelevant to the question of whether someone is a theist or an atheist.

A person who believes God exists is a theist.

This view expresses an agnostic view point so, we also have in this the understanding that agnostics, believing that god exists and God does not exist are equally likely, can be called atheist or theist regardless of the fact that they all believe that the God exists and God does not exist are equally likely.

No, only people who believe God exists are theists.

Is this a fair characterization?

Could not have been more off the mark.

 

[Curious George]

That, to me, is contradictory to previous statements you have made, hence my want for a deeper explanation.

My statement was that a person could believe that god exists is true and God does not exist is true. We cannot describe this person as "not believing in God" because they clearly do believe in god.

That they also believe that god does not exist is separate from the discussion of whether someone believes god exists. Just as you have articulated that someone rejects god exists is separate from their rejection of god does not exist.

Do you follow now?

 

[Curious George]

No. By definition, no. A theist by definition believes a God exists. That is what it means to be theist. A person who believes God exists is a theist.
No, only people who believe God exists are theists. Could not have been more off the mark.

This agnostic does accept God exists as true...I assume that is what you mean by "believes in God"